linux-kernel - RE: [RFC PATCH 03/06] input/rmi4: I2C physical interface

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 11 Oct 2012 04:21:12 +0000
From:	Christopher Heiny <Cheiny@...aptics.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
	Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Input <linux-input@...r.kernel.org>,
	Allie Xiong <axiong@...aptics.com>,
	Vivian Ly <vly@...aptics.com>,
	Daniel Rosenberg <daniel.rosenberg@...aptics.com>,
	Joerie de Gram <j.de.gram@...il.com>,
	Wolfram Sang <w.sang@...gutronix.de>,
	Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...ricsson.com>,
	Naveen Kumar Gaddipati <naveen.gaddipati@...ricsson.com>,
	Alexandra Chin <alexandra.chin@...synaptics.com>
Subject: RE: [RFC PATCH 03/06] input/rmi4: I2C physical interface

Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2012 at 6:10 AM, Christopher Heiny <cheiny@...aptics.com> wrote:
> > The I2C physical driver is not extensively changed in terms of
> > functionality since the previous patch.  Management of the attention GPIO
> > has been moved to rmi_driver.c (see previous email), and most of the
> > debug related interfaces have been moved from sysfs to debugfs.  Control
> > of the debug features has been moved from compile-time to runtime
> > switches available via debugfs.
> > 
> > The core I2C functionality was previously ACKed by Jean Delvare.  I don't
> > believe that portion of the code has changed much since then, but we'd
> > appreciate a second glance at this.
> 
> The above commit blurb looks more like a changelog than a description
> of the actual patch. Nothing wrong with that but begin by describing
> the patch first.

Good point.  I was describing the patch, but not from the correct point of view. :-)

[snip some items covered in a previous email]

> 
> > +static int setup_debugfs(struct rmi_device *rmi_dev, struct rmi_i2c_data
> > *data); +static void teardown_debugfs(struct rmi_i2c_data *data);
> 
> Why do you need to forward-declare these? Can't you just move them
> up above the functions using them?

Probably.  We'll do that if possible.

> 
> > +struct i2c_debugfs_data {
> > +       bool done;
> 
> Done with what? ... needs some doc.

OK.

> 
> > +       struct rmi_i2c_data *i2c_data;
> > +};
> 
> (...)
> 
> > +static int __devinit rmi_i2c_probe(struct i2c_client *client,
> > +                                 const struct i2c_device_id *id)
> 
> (...)
> 
> > +       rmi_phys = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rmi_phys_device), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> (...)
> 
> > +       data = kzalloc(sizeof(struct rmi_i2c_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Can you use devm_kzalloc(&client->dev, ...) for these so you don't
> need to free() them explicitly?

Hmmmmmm.  That looks like a merge regression - I'm pretty sure we implemented devm_kzalloc there.

> 
> (...)
> 
> > +static int __devexit rmi_i2c_remove(struct i2c_client *client)
> > +{
> > +       struct rmi_phys_device *phys = i2c_get_clientdata(client);
> > +       struct rmi_device_platform_data *pd = client->dev.platform_data;
> > +
> > +       /* Can I remove this disable_device */
> > +       /*disable_device(phys); */
> 
> So just delete these two lines then?

Yes.--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/